A.

General Principles of Construction

1. Law Construed as a Whole:

 Discussion: When interpreting a statute, it should be read in its entirety to understand

the context and the relationship between its various provisions. This holistic approach
ensures that the statute is applied consistently and logically.

 Example: In CAUDAL vs. COURT OF APPEALS (G.R. No. 83414, July 31, 1989), the court
emphasized that the provisions of a statute must be interpreted in relation to each other
to give effect to the whole law.

2. Presumption of Justice (Article 10, Civil Code):

 Discussion: Laws are presumed to be just and fair. This presumption guides courts to
interpret statutes in a manner that promotes justice and fairness.

 Example: If a law appears to have an unjust outcome, courts may interpret it in a way
that aligns with the principles of justice, ensuring that the application of the law does
not lead to unfair results.

3. Construction Consistent with the Constitution:

 Discussion: Statutes must be interpreted in a manner that is consistent with

constitutional principles. If a statute can be interpreted in multiple ways, the
interpretation that aligns with the Constitution should be preferred.

 Example: In TAÑADA vs. TUVERA (G.R. No. L-63915, April 24, 1985), the court held that
laws must be published in the Official Gazette to be valid, ensuring transparency and
adherence to constitutional requirements.

4. Construction to Render Provision Effective:

 Discussion: Statutes should be interpreted to give effect to all their provisions. No part
of a statute should be rendered meaningless or redundant.

 Example: If a statute includes a specific provision, courts will interpret it in a way that
gives effect to that provision, rather than ignoring it or rendering it ineffective.

B. Legislative Policies and Presumptions; Liberal and Strict Construction

1. Penal Laws:

 Discussion: Penal laws are construed strictly against the state and liberally in favor of the
accused to protect individual rights.

 Example: In QUIMVEL vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES (GR. No. 214497, April 18, 2017),
the court applied a strict interpretation of the penal code to ensure that the accused's
rights were not violated.

2. Tax Laws:

 Discussion: Tax laws are construed strictly against the taxpayer and liberally in favor of
the government to ensure proper tax collection.

 Example: In COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE vs. COURT OF APPEALS, et al (GR

no. 115349, April 18, 1997), the court interpreted tax provisions in favor of the
government to ensure compliance with tax obligations.

3. Social Legislation:

 Discussion: Social legislation is construed liberally to promote social justice and welfare.

1|Page
  Example: Laws related to labor rights, social security, and welfare benefits are
interpreted in a way that maximizes protection and benefits for individuals.

4. Rules of Court:

 Discussion: Rules of court are construed to secure a just, speedy, and inexpensive
determination of every action.

 Example: Procedural rules are interpreted to facilitate fair and efficient resolution of
cases, avoiding unnecessary delays and expenses.

5. Adoption Laws:

 Discussion: Adoption laws are construed liberally to promote the best interests of the
child.

 Example: In IN RE: PETITION FOR ADOPTION OF MICHELLE P. LIM AND MICHAEL JUDE
P. LIM (G.R. Nos. 168992-93, May 21, 2009), the court interpreted adoption laws in a
way that favored the welfare and best interests of the children involved.

6. Local Autonomy:

 Discussion: Laws related to local autonomy are construed to enhance the autonomy and
powers of local government units.

 Example: Statutes granting powers to local governments are interpreted broadly to

allow them to effectively govern their jurisdictions.

7. Naturalization Laws:

 Discussion: Naturalization laws are construed strictly against the applicant to ensure that
only those who fully meet the requirements are granted citizenship.

 Example: Courts carefully scrutinize applications for naturalization to ensure compliance

with all legal requirements.

8. Election Laws:

 Discussion: Election laws are construed liberally to give effect to the will of the
electorate.

 Example: In cases of election disputes, courts interpret laws in a way that upholds the
integrity of the electoral process and reflects the true will of the voters.

9. Prescriptive Periods:

 Discussion: Laws related to prescriptive periods are construed strictly to avoid the
forfeiture of rights.

 Example: Courts strictly apply statutes of limitations to ensure that claims are brought
within the legally prescribed timeframes.

10. Constitutional Construction:

 Self-Executing vs. Non-Self-Executing:

 Discussion: Self-executing provisions are effective without the need for further
legislation, while non-self-executing provisions require additional legislative
action.

 Example: A constitutional provision that explicitly grants a right or imposes a

duty is considered self-executing and can be enforced directly by the courts.

C. Administrative Construction

2|Page
  Discussion: Administrative agencies' interpretations of statutes they administer are given
considerable weight by courts, especially when the statute is ambiguous.

 Example: In CIR Vs. BICOLANDIA DRUG CORPORATION (G.R. No. 148083, July 21, 2006), the
court gave deference to the interpretation of the tax code by the Bureau of Internal Revenue,
recognizing the agency's expertise in tax matters.

Cases:

CAUDAL vs. COURT OF APPEALS (G.R. No. 83414, July 31, 1989)

Facts: Tony Caudal was a tenant of a unit in a six-door apartment building owned by Dionisio Cu. Cu
purchased the property and notified Caudal of the termination of the lease, giving him until October
1984 to vacate. Caudal refused to leave, prompting Cu to file an ejectment case. The Metropolitan Trial
Court ruled in favor of Cu, and this decision was upheld by the Regional Trial Court and the Court of
Appeals.

Ruling: The Supreme Court affirmed the lower courts' decisions, emphasizing that the lease contract had
been validly terminated and that Cu had the right to repossess the property for his family's use. The
Court highlighted the principle that laws should be construed as a whole, considering the intent and
purpose of the legislation.

TAÑADA vs. TUVERA (G.R. No. L-63915, April 24, 1985)

Facts: Petitioners, including Lorenzo Tañada, sought a writ of mandamus to compel the publication of
various presidential decrees, letters of instructions, and other executive issuances in the Official Gazette.
They argued that these issuances must be published to be enforceable, as required by the Constitution.

Ruling: The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the petitioners, stating that laws and executive issuances of
general applicability must be published in the Official Gazette to be valid and enforceable. This decision
reinforced the constitutional requirement for transparency and public awareness of laws.

QUIMVEL vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES (G.R. No. 214497, April 18, 2017)

Facts: Eduardo Quimvel was convicted of acts of lasciviousness against a minor under Republic Act No.
7610. The victim, a seven-year-old girl, testified that Quimvel had molested her while she was sleeping.

Ruling: The Supreme Court upheld Quimvel's conviction, emphasizing the importance of protecting
children from sexual abuse. The Court interpreted the provisions of RA 7610 liberally to ensure the law's
protective purpose was achieved.

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE vs. COURT OF APPEALS, et al (G.R. No. 115349, April 18, 1997)

Facts: The Commissioner of Internal Revenue assessed Ateneo de Manila University's Institute of
Philippine Culture (IPC) for deficiency contractor's tax. Ateneo contested the assessment, arguing that
IPC's activities were not commercial and thus not subject to the tax.

Ruling: The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Ateneo, stating that IPC's research activities did not
constitute the sale of services for a fee. The Court applied a strict interpretation of tax laws, favoring the
taxpayer in cases of ambiguity.

BAUTISTA vs. MURILLO (G.R. No. L-13374, January 31, 1962)

Facts: Gerardo Murillo, a casual laborer, was injured while working on the construction of Francisco
Bautista's building. Murillo filed a compensation claim, which Bautista contested, arguing that Murillo
was not a regular employee.

Ruling: The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Murillo, recognizing his status as a casual laborer entitled to
compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act. The Court emphasized a liberal interpretation of
the law to protect workers' rights.

3|Page
CABRERA vs. NG (G.R. No. 201601, March 12, 2014)

Facts: Felix Ng filed a complaint against Marylou Cabrera for issuing dishonored checks. Cabrera's motion
for reconsideration was denied by the RTC due to non-compliance with the three-day notice
requirement.

Ruling: The Supreme Court ruled that while the three-day notice requirement is generally mandatory, it
is not absolute. The Court emphasized that procedural rules should be liberally construed to promote
justice, and substantial compliance suffices if the adverse party is not prejudiced.

IN RE: PETITION FOR ADOPTION OF MICHELLE P. LIM AND MICHAEL JUDE P. LIM (G.R. Nos. 168992-93,
May 21, 2009)

Facts: Monina Lim's petition to adopt two children was denied because her husband did not join the
petition, as required by law.

Ruling: The Supreme Court upheld the necessity of joint adoption by married couples, emphasizing the
importance of both spouses' consent in adoption proceedings.

CIR vs. BICOLANDIA DRUG CORPORATION (G.R. No. 148083, July 21, 2006)

Facts: This case involved the interpretation of tax credits for senior citizen discounts. The Bureau of
Internal Revenue's regulations treated these discounts as deductions from gross income, rather than tax
credits.

Ruling: The Supreme Court ruled that the BIR's regulations deviated from the law, and the discounts
should be treated as tax credits. The Court emphasized the need for regulations to align with the
legislative intent.

1. General Words Construed Generally

 Discussion: General words in a statute are to be given their general meaning unless the context
indicates otherwise. This principle ensures that the broad language of the law is applied broadly.

 Example: In Dabalos vs RTC (G.R. No. 193960, January 7, 2013), the court interpreted the
general term "property" to include all types of property, not just real property, as there was no
indication that the term should be limited.

2. Provisos

 Discussion: A proviso is a clause in a statute that limits or qualifies the generality of the main
provision. It is usually introduced by the word "provided."

 Example: In Arenas vs City of San Carlos (G.R. No. L-34024, April 5, 1978), the court held that
the proviso in the statute limited the application of the main provision to specific circumstances.

3. Ordinary Words Understood in Ordinary Sense; Technical Words in Technical Sense

 Discussion: Ordinary words are to be understood in their common, everyday sense, while
technical words are to be understood in their technical sense.

 Example: In Carandang vs Santiago et al (G.R. No. L-8238, May 25, 1955), the court interpreted
the term "vehicle" in its ordinary sense to include all types of vehicles, not just motor vehicles.

 Example: In Nix v. Hedden, 149 U.S. 304 (1893), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that tomatoes
should be classified as vegetables based on their ordinary meaning, despite being botanically
classified as fruits.

4. Generic Words and Progressive Construction

 Discussion: Generic words are to be given a broad interpretation to include all things that fall
within the general category.

4|Page
  Example: If a statute refers to "vehicles," it would include cars, trucks, motorcycles, and other
types of vehicles unless specifically limited.

5. Punctuation Marks

 Discussion: Punctuation marks can aid in the interpretation of statutes, but they are not
decisive. They can help clarify the meaning when the text is ambiguous.

 Example: In Agcaoili v. Suguitan (Feb. 13, 1926), the court used punctuation marks to help
determine the relationship between clauses in the statute.

6. Use of Specific Words

a. Use of the words "and"/"or":

 Discussion: "And" is conjunctive, meaning all conditions must be met, while "or" is disjunctive,
meaning any one of the conditions can be met.

 Example: In Romulo v. Home Development Mutual Fund (June 19, 2000), the court interpreted
"and/or" to mean either "and" or "or," depending on the context.

b. Mandatory and Permissive Words; Shall/May:

 Discussion: "Shall" is generally interpreted as mandatory, imposing a duty, while "may" is

permissive, allowing discretion.

 Example: In G.R. No. 168617 (February 19, 2007), the court interpreted "shall" as mandatory,
indicating a compulsory requirement.

c. Including/Involving:

 Discussion: The word "including" is interpreted to mean "including but not limited to," while
"involving" implies that the subject matter is part of a broader category.

 Example: In La Bugal-B’laan v. Ramos (Dec. 14, 2004), the court interpreted "involving" to mean
that agreements with foreign corporations could include various forms of assistance.

d. Affirmative and Prohibitory Words:

 Discussion: Affirmative words impose duties, while prohibitory words impose restrictions.

 Example: In People vs. Amigo, the court interpreted prohibitory words as mandatory, meaning
the actions prohibited by the statute must not be performed.

e. Exceptions:

 Discussion: Exceptions in statutes are to be interpreted narrowly, applying only to the specific
cases mentioned.

 Example: If a statute exempts certain individuals from a tax, only those specifically mentioned
are exempt.

f. Periods:

 Discussion: Time periods specified in statutes are generally interpreted strictly.

 Example: If a statute requires an action to be taken within 30 days, the 30-day period is strictly
enforced.

g. Plural Words; Singular Words:

 Discussion: Singular words can include the plural and vice versa, depending on the context.

 Example: In In re: The Intestate Estate of Pedron Satillon (G.R. Nos. L-32560-61, October 22,
1970), the court interpreted the singular term "heir" to include multiple heirs.

5|Page
Cases

General Words Construed Generally

Dabalos vs. RTC (G.R. No. 193960, January 7, 2013)

Facts: Karlo Angelo Dabalos was charged under Section 5(a) of Republic Act No. 9262 (Anti-Violence
Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004) for using personal violence against his former girlfriend.
Dabalos argued that since their dating relationship had ended, RA 9262 should not apply.

Ruling: The Supreme Court dismissed Dabalos' petition, affirming that RA 9262 covers acts of violence
against women with whom the offender has or had a sexual or dating relationship, regardless of whether
the relationship had ended. The Court emphasized that the law's language should be understood in its
general sense to protect women and children.

Proviso

Arenas vs. City of San Carlos (G.R. No. L-34024, April 5, 1978)

Facts: Isidro G. Arenas, a city judge, filed a petition for mandamus to compel the City of San Carlos to pay
him a salary differential as mandated by Republic Act No. 5967. The city argued that the proviso in the
law required the judge's salary to be less than the mayor's salary.

Ruling: The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the city, stating that the proviso in RA 5967, which ensures
city judges earn less than city mayors, takes precedence. The Court highlighted that provisos should be
given effect as they express the legislative intent to limit the general provisions of the law.

How Ordinary Words/Technical Words are Understood

Carandang vs. Santiago et al. (G.R. No. L-8238, May 25, 1955)

Facts: Cesar Carandang filed a civil suit for damages after being injured by Tomas Valenton, Jr., who was
convicted of frustrated homicide. The trial court suspended the civil case pending the criminal appeal.

Ruling: The Supreme Court ruled that the term "physical injuries" in Article 33 of the Civil Code should
be understood in its ordinary sense, not just as a specific crime under the Revised Penal Code. The Court
allowed the civil action to proceed independently of the criminal case.

Nix v. Hedden, 149 U.S. 304 (1893)

Facts: The plaintiffs sought to recover duties paid on imported tomatoes, arguing that tomatoes should
be classified as "fruit" under the Tariff Act of 1883, which would exempt them from duties.

Ruling: The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that tomatoes are "vegetables" based on their ordinary meaning in
trade and commerce, rather than their botanical classification. The Court emphasized that ordinary
words should be understood in their common usage.

Plural Words; Singular Words

In re: The Intestate Estate of Pedron Satillon (G.R. Nos. L-32560-61, October 22, 1970)

Facts: Pedro Santillon died intestate, leaving behind his wife and son. The dispute centered on the
distribution of his estate, with differing interpretations of the relevant Civil Code articles.

Ruling: The Supreme Court applied Article 996 of the Civil Code, which governs intestate succession, and
ruled that the estate should be equally divided between the surviving spouse and the legitimate child.
The Court emphasized that singular words in the law can include the plural and vice versa, depending on
the context.

6|Page
1. Noscitur a Sociis

 Discussion: This principle means "a word is known by the company it keeps." It suggests that the
meaning of an ambiguous word can be determined by the words surrounding it.

 Example: If a law refers to "vehicles, including cars, trucks, and motorcycles," the term "vehicles"
would not include airplanes because the surrounding words indicate land-based transportation.

2. Ejusdem Generis

 Discussion: This principle means "of the same kind." When general words follow specific words
in a list, the general words are interpreted to include only items of the same type as the specific
words.

 Example: In a statute that lists "automobiles, trucks, tractors, motorcycles, and other motor-
powered vehicles," the term "other motor-powered vehicles" would not include airplanes.

3. Express Mention and Implied Exclusion (Expressio Unius Est Exclusio Alterius)

 Discussion: This principle means that the express mention of one thing excludes all others. If a
statute explicitly mentions certain items, it implies that items not mentioned are excluded.

 Example: If a law grants tax exemptions to "schools, hospitals, and churches," it implies that
other institutions, like libraries, are not exemp.

4. Necessary Implication

 Discussion: This principle states that what is implied in a statute is as much a part of it as what is
expressed. It fills in gaps to ensure the statute's purpose is achieved.

 Example: If a statute grants a city the power to regulate traffic, it necessarily implies the power
to install traffic signs.

5. Casus Omissus

 Discussion: This principle means "a case omitted is to be held as intentionally omitted." Courts
should not fill in gaps in statutes with their own interpretations.

 Example: If a statute lists specific exceptions to a rule and omits others, courts should not create
additional exceptions.

6. Each to Each

 Discussion: This principle means that each term in a statute should be applied to each relevant
part of the statute.

 Example: If a statute states "licenses for fishing and hunting," the term "licenses" applies to both
"fishing" and "hunting".

7. Qualifying Terms; Last Antecedent

 Discussion: This principle states that qualifying words or phrases refer to the nearest antecedent
unless a contrary intention appears.

 Example: In the phrase "licenses for fishing and hunting issued by the state," the qualifier
"issued by the state" applies only to "hunting".

8. Extrinsic Aids of Construction in General

 Discussion: Extrinsic aids are external sources used to interpret statutes, such as legislative
history, committee reports, and other related documents.

 Example: Courts may refer to legislative debates to understand the intent behind a statute.

7|Page
9. Extrinsic Aids

1. Legislative Deliberations:

 Discussion: Refers to the discussions and debates that occur during the legislative
process.

 Example: Reviewing the debates in Congress to understand the purpose of a law.

2. Legislative History:

 Discussion: Includes documents like committee reports and previous versions of the bill.

 Example: Courts may look at the legislative history to determine the intent behind
ambiguous language in a statute.

3. Contemporaneous Circumstances:

 Discussion: Refers to the context and conditions existing at the time the statute was
enacted.

 Example: Understanding the economic or social conditions that led to the creation of a
law.

4. Legislative Practice, Reference to Other Statutes:

 Discussion: Refers to the use of other statutes to interpret the meaning of a statute.

 Example: Courts may compare similar statutes to ensure consistent interpretation.

5. Statutes Borrowed from Foreign Jurisdictions:

 Discussion: Refers to the use of laws from other jurisdictions to interpret a statute.

 Example: If a statute is modeled after a law from another country, courts may look at
how that law is interpreted in its original jurisdiction.

1. Statutes in Pari Materia

 Discussion: Statutes that relate to the same subject matter should be read together to ensure a
consistent and harmonious interpretation.

 Example: If two statutes address environmental protection, they should be interpreted in a way
that aligns their provisions to avoid conflicting regulations

2. Special Law versus General Law

 Discussion: A special law prevails over a general law when both apply to the same subject
matter. The special law is considered an exception to the general law.

 Example: In Lopez v. Civil Service Commission (G.R. No. 87119, April 16, 1991), the court held
that a special law governing the civil service took precedence over a general administrative law.

3. Substantive Law versus Procedural Law

 Discussion: Substantive law defines rights and duties, while procedural law outlines the methods
to enforce those rights and duties.

 Example: Substantive law would define what constitutes a breach of contract, while procedural
law would dictate how a lawsuit for breach of contract should be filed and conducted.

4. Earlier Law versus Later Law; Amendment and Repeal

8|Page
  Discussion: When a later law conflicts with an earlier law, the later law prevails. Amendments
are treated as part of the original statute.

 Example: If a new law amends an existing law on taxation, the amended provisions are read as if
they were part of the original law from the beginning.

5. Prospectivity of Laws

 Discussion: Laws are presumed to operate prospectively unless the legislature explicitly states
otherwise.

 Example: In Segovia v. Noel (G.R. No. L-23226, March 4, 1925), the court held that a statute
operates prospectively unless there is clear legislative intent for retroactive application.

6. Retroactivity of Statutes

 Discussion: Retroactive application of statutes is generally disfavored unless explicitly stated.

Certain types of laws, such as procedural rules, police power regulations, curative laws, and
penal laws, may have retroactive effects under specific conditions.

 Procedural Rules: Procedural changes can apply retroactively as they do not affect
substantive rights.

 Police Power: Laws enacted under police power for public safety and welfare can have
retroactive application.

 Curative Laws: These laws correct defects in prior laws and can be applied retroactively.

 Penal Laws: Generally, penal laws are not retroactive unless they are favorable to the
accused.

 Example: A new procedural rule on filing deadlines can apply to ongoing cases, while a new
criminal law reducing penalties can apply retroactively to benefit defendants.

7. Prospectivity and Retroactivity of Judicial Decisions

 Discussion: Judicial decisions are generally applied retroactively, but courts may choose
prospective application to avoid injustice or hardship.

 Example: In Harper v. Virginia Department of Taxation (509 U.S. 86, 1993), the U.S. Supreme
Court held that judicial decisions must be given full retroactive effect unless doing so would
cause significant injustice.

8. Interpretation of Contracts

 Discussion: Contracts are interpreted according to the intent of the parties, the plain meaning of
the language used, and the context in which the contract was made.

 Example: If a contract term is ambiguous, courts will look at the entire contract and the
circumstances surrounding its formation to determine the parties' intent.

9|Page